BEFORE THE SINDH SERVICE TRIBUNAL AT KARACHI PRESENT:- JUSTICE (R) OAISER IQBAL, CHAIRPERSON, \T ALT nN, I APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2017 Javeed Hussain Rajput S/o Akhtar Hussain Rajput Muslim, Adult, Ex-Stenographer- BS-12. Ro Village Pingroio, Taluka Tando Bago, District Badin... APPELLANT. VERSUS 1. Province of Sindh, Through Secretary Home Department, Ground floor, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi. 2 Inspector General Prisons Prison Department, Government of Sindh, Pir Illahi Bux Road, Muslimabad, Karahi... Mr. Ali Asaduillah Bullo, advocate for the appellant. Mr./S. Kamil Shah, AAG Sindh for the respondents. Date of Hearing: 10.05.2017 Date of Judgment: 05.06.2017 SUDGMENT JUSTICE (R) ER IQBAL, IN: This appeal under section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ordinance, 2000) has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned order dated 25.06.2015 whereby major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon appellant and appellate order dated 07.12.2016 whereby punishment awarded to the appellant was maintained. 2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the case are that the appellant was appointed as Stenographer (BS-12) in’ Prison2 Department in the year 2011 by the respondent No.2. After appointment the appellant was not allowed to serve as Stenographer was assigned the task of training of Jail Staff at Nara Prison. On 06.11.2014 the appellant received a letter whereby he was directed to improve his skills as Stenographer yet he was directed to continue with the assignment of training of Jail Staff a task not related to the post of Stenographer. On 18.02.2015 show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2 which was replied by the appellant. During the course of six years after his appointment he was not allowed to serve as Stenographer instead thereof he was deputed to Training Jail staff, The respondent No.2 issued Final Show Cause notice on 17.04.2015, the appellant was awarded major penalty of removal from service vide impugned order dated 25.06,2018. The_ appellant submitted departmental appeal before the fespondent No.1 which was allowed with the direction;t0 improve'the skill he was reinstated with the conditiomthat afterthe expiry within six months, appellant has to undetgo, test” The respondent No.2 instead of posting appellant as ‘Stenographer again malafidely issued an‘order dated 17.11.2015, he was sent on the disposal of the Prison Staff Training Institute Nara after being reinstated in service. A committee was constituted to examine the skills of shorthand/typing. The respondent No.2 instead of disclosing the true picture and informing the respondent no.1 that appellant was never given an opportunity to improve his skills, wrongly communicated the result of performance of appellant. Respondent No.1 upheld the impugned order of removal from service of appellant passed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 07.12.2016. ‘The appellant preferred this appeal and has prayed for following relief: a. Declare the impugned Removal from Service dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Respondent No.2 and ‘subsequent appellate order dated 07.12.2016 passed bythe Respondent No.1 as illegal, unjustified against the equity and fair play, set aside the same, ». Direct the respondent No.2 to reinstate the services of the Appellant from the day of removal and release all back benefits as admissible to other serving employee. © Further prayer(s) shall be urged and brought in during the course of arguments. @ Direct the respondents to pay the legal costs to the petitioner for filing of the instant petition. 3. The respondent No.1 in the written statement admitted the factum of appointment of appellant as Stenographer. He was posted at Sindh Prison Staff Training Institute Nara and was directed to improve his shorthand skills within the period of three months, on account of unsatisfactory performance the services were terminated, | later he was reinstated by Home Department,. Government of Sindh with the direction to allow six months" grace period of improving the skills. After six months committee! was formed and the action per se taken in accordance with show cause notice the appellant’s service Were terminated as no improvement was found in his skills. 4. ‘The respondent No.2 in the written statement reiterated the facts as disclosed by the respondent No.1 in the written statement and submitted that the appeal as framed and filed is not maintainable in law. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that after appointment the appellant was not allowed to serve as Stenographer. He was assigned the duties of training the staff in the supervision of Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Nara from the year 2014 till 2016. The respondent did not assign job to the appellant in accordance with terms and conditions including his expertise for which he was appointed. The appellant had received a letter whereby he was directed to improve his skills as Stenographer, continued with the assignment of training the jail staff did not include any of the4 subject related to the post of Stenographer. The appellant was served with @ show cause notice a committee was formed he was removed from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 being incompetent, inefficient and not following the lawful orders of the superiors to improve the basic requirements of his Job being Stenographer. 6. Learned AAG appearing for respondents contended that the appellant was appointed as Stenographer, posted against vacant Post yet he was not an expert of shorthand/typing and other works related to his job description as prescribed in office procedure, he was assigned to look after other duties and advised to improve his working yet he did not improve. The Inspector General of Prisons) Sindh directed the appellant through letter to improve his shorthand and other work but he failed to improve his Perlormiance, It is next urged that the reply furnished-By ‘the appellant to the show cause notice was found un-satisfactory, final show cause notice was served, He was called for personal hearing on 16.05.2015, therefore, removed from! service by Inspector General of Prisons. He preferred departmental appeal, Home Secretary to Government of Sindh decided his appeal the appellant was reinstated with the direction to improve his skills within six month’s grace period. After the expiry of grace Period appellant did not improve his skills, a committee was formed, requisite typing speed, shorthand and long skills were not in accordance with prescribed rules, therefore, Home Department decided the pending appeal of the appellant vide order dated 07.12.2016 whereby he was dismissed from service. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised the show cause notice dated 18.02.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:- OFFICE OF Tus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS ‘sINDH Pir lllahi Buksh Road Mus NO.EB-/3102/03 Dated 18.02.2018"Mr, Javeed Hussain, ‘Stenographer of Sindh Prisons. Training Institute Nara Hyderabad\, SUBJECT; SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. Whereas you are involved in misconduct within the meaning of Section3 ofthe Removal from Seco (Spec! Power) Sith Ordnance, 2000, ara fe eo Se ‘which warrants action against you under the aforesaid ordinance on the folowing charges a Andras be sit masons oe sino pre sr rfiiny end Beets i a a ree it er ean oe ‘Blussain Mongar, Inspector General of Prisons Sindh, boing appotning tuthorty, am sated ‘tthe ro ned of tse le a a 3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (4)6f} Section & of the Ordinance, I do hereby dispense uith the inquiry and call pon you & ceo, cause within 15 Often) days of receipt of this notice under the said Ordinanes ind mage! Penalty of removal from service be awarded, failing which, ex:parte decision wil be talon ‘against you. 4 You may also intimate whether you would ike 10 be helt i person. Ben ap haung eet aru te Sm Se ote Soult be ete otis ofa a peor Genera of Poa ah ‘Karachi The above show cause notice was replied by the appellant he was Posted as Stenographer yet he was performing duties of lecturer as Per order of his superior. The final show cause notice was issued on 17.04.2015 which was replied by the appellant his services were terminated by the respondent No.2 against which a departmental appeal was filed before the respondent No.1. The appellant was directed to improve his skill within 6 months grace period pending final decision on the appeal in pursuance of the order of the tespondent No.1 appellant was reinstated, pending final decision of his appeal after the expiry of the grace period a committee consisting of the officers of Sindh Prisons Department comprising of Mr. Muzaffar Alam Siddiqui, DIGP Prisons, Hyderabad Region, ii) Mr. Ashraf Ali Nizamani DIG, Prisons Karachi Region, iii) Mr. MunawarKhan, Assistant Director (Admn) Prisons Inspectorate Sindh Karahci was formed to conduct the test of the appellant to elaborate his skills, committee found that appellant was not possessing the requisite qualification of Stenographer. It is strange that the appellant was not allowed to work on the assignment of Stenographer for one or other reason yet he continued to perform duty by training jail staff throughout his service in violation of the terms and condition of the employment the authority cannot be allowed to achieve personal aims instead it was the incumbent duty of the authority to depute the appellant on the post for which his service were hire the action of the respondents which was required to be exercised fairly, justly and honestly by deputing the appellant as Staff Trainer in Nare Jail is against the principle of locus poenitentiae and nullity in law: 8. For what has been discuSsed above the impugned and appellate order are hereby'set-aside. Appellant is reinstated in service with the direction to the respondent No.2 to depute the appellant on thé ost, of Stenographer. After a period of one year, the appellant, be re-examined to adjudge his expertise strictly on merits, if appellant was not found to be in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedure, the competent authority shall take action against the appellant strictly in accordance with law. So far as the back benefits are concerned the competent authority would treat the period as leave of kind due and determine the issue of back benefits accordingly. ‘The appeal stands allowed in above terms. Sd/- (JUSTICE (R) QAISER IQBAL) CHAIRPERSON: Sd/- (SHOUKAT ALI MEMON) MEMBER-I sWAQasee